ScoreRAG: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework with Consistency-Relevance Scoring and Structured Summarization for News Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03704v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 08:35:06 GMT
• Title: ScoreRAG: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework with Consistency-Relevance Scoring and Structured Summarization for News Generation
• Authors: Pei-Yun Lin, Yen-lung Tsai,
• Abstract summary: Current news generation methods struggle with hallucinations, factual inconsistencies, and lack of domain-specific expertise.<n>ScoreRAG addresses these challenges through a multi-stage framework combining retrieval-augmented generation, consistency relevance evaluation, and structured summarization.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This research introduces ScoreRAG, an approach to enhance the quality of automated news generation. Despite advancements in Natural Language Processing and large language models, current news generation methods often struggle with hallucinations, factual inconsistencies, and lack of domain-specific expertise when producing news articles. ScoreRAG addresses these challenges through a multi-stage framework combining retrieval-augmented generation, consistency relevance evaluation, and structured summarization. The system first retrieves relevant news documents from a vector database, maps them to complete news items, and assigns consistency relevance scores based on large language model evaluations. These documents are then reranked according to relevance, with low-quality items filtered out. The framework proceeds to generate graded summaries based on relevance scores, which guide the large language model in producing complete news articles following professional journalistic standards. Through this methodical approach, ScoreRAG aims to significantly improve the accuracy, coherence, informativeness, and professionalism of generated news articles while maintaining stability and consistency throughout the generation process. The code and demo are available at: https://github.com/peiyun2260/ScoreRAG.

Related papers

• Consistency Evaluation of News Article Summaries Generated by Large (and Small) Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating fluent abstractive summaries but they can produce hallucinated details not grounded in the source text.<n>This paper embarks on an exploration of text summarization with a diverse set of techniques, including TextRank, BART, Mistral-7B-Instruct, and OpenAI GPT-3.5-Turbo.<n>We find that all summarization models produce consistent summaries when tested on the XL-Sum dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T01:58:17Z)
• TrustRAG: An Information Assistant with Retrieval Augmented Generation [73.84864898280719]
  TrustRAG is a novel framework that enhances acRAG from three perspectives: indexing, retrieval, and generation.<n>We open-source the TrustRAG framework and provide a demonstration studio designed for excerpt-based question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T13:45:27Z)
• Detecting Document-level Paraphrased Machine Generated Content: Mimicking Human Writing Style and Involving Discourse Features [57.34477506004105]
  Machine-generated content poses challenges such as academic plagiarism and the spread of misinformation.<n>We introduce novel methodologies and datasets to overcome these challenges.<n>We propose MhBART, an encoder-decoder model designed to emulate human writing style.<n>We also propose DTransformer, a model that integrates discourse analysis through PDTB preprocessing to encode structural features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T08:47:41Z)
• Towards Better Open-Ended Text Generation: A Multicriteria Evaluation Framework [0.1979158763744267]
  Open-ended text generation has become a prominent task in natural language processing.<n>Decoding methods often excel in some metrics while underperforming in others.<n>We present novel ranking strategies within this multicriteria framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T11:32:01Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• Automatic News Summerization [0.0]
  The study employs the CNN-Daily Mail dataset, which consists of news articles and human-generated reference summaries. The evaluation employs ROUGE scores to assess the efficacy and quality of generated summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:38:03Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• EditEval: An Instruction-Based Benchmark for Text Improvements [73.5918084416016]
  This work presents EditEval: An instruction-based, benchmark and evaluation suite for automatic evaluation of editing capabilities. We evaluate several pre-trained models, which shows that InstructGPT and PEER perform the best, but that most baselines fall below the supervised SOTA. Our analysis shows that commonly used metrics for editing tasks do not always correlate well, and that optimization for prompts with the highest performance does not necessarily entail the strongest robustness to different models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-27T12:26:05Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.